Agenda - Council - 01/14/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion carried, Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beyer, Zimmerman, Beahen and Peterson. Voting No: None. Case #8: Introduction of Utility Franchise Fee City Administrator Schroeder stated that at the October 22 and November 26, I996 meetings, Council talked about the utility franchise fee. Adoption of this fee would recover funds from utilities for using right-of-ways for which they are not paying and to dedicate the use of these revenues toward the street maintenance program. These funds would eliminate the street maintenance seal coating portion of the program. When the City does the sealcoating, 50% is paid for out of the general fund. If this is passed, that benefit would be eliminated for sealcoating - not overlays. What happens to the 6.84 miles of dirt streets? We proposed allocating $20,000 of the general fund budget to provide a street paving program. The net end result would be eliminating an average $150 sealcoating charge every six to seven years and about a $14 per year increase on utility bills. Gary Lien, 14620 Bowers Drive NW, Ramsey, stated he is not hearing anything different than before. He wished Council would unanimously oppose the fee. For that $20,000 for blacktopping, families would be paying a 1% on the franchise fee and that would be paid for by the people who also live on blacktop roads. That's an unfair tax. He reported that his neighborhood petitioned the City in 1981 for blacktop streets - and that included storm sewer. In 1988, we had our first sealcoating. We paid al/of that bill. In 1991, the City passed a policy saying it would pay 50% of sealcoating. In 1993, Bowers Drive should have been sealcoated again. If we would have been in charge of it, we would have seen to it that it would have been done in a timely fashion. In 1994, the City could not afford to do our sealcoating and they postponed it to 1995. It was again postponed and was finally done in 1996. An eight-year period is too long. We have a lot of money invested in that road. Mr. Lien felt if there are no funds in the City's budget to seal coat the roads on time, then we should go back to the former policy where everyone pays 100% of their own street maintenance costs. He stated that he had contacted the City of Elk River and they pay 100% of street maintenance - sealcoating and overlaying - out of their operating budget; there is no franchise fee. The Cities of Anoka, Coon Rapids and Champlin all operate the same way. The first preference would be to raise the mil levy to include this. Why does Ramsey have to operate so differently? Why tax unfairly for some of the residents? If a family uses oil, they do not pay Minnegasco for gas. We pay up front and the City takes care of the roads in a timely fashion. Doug Fountain, 15255 Garnet Street NW, Ramsey, stated he is probably responsible for this proposal. This ordinance should be written so that this windfall of money, should it occur, should be marked for street maintenance. He stated he is not proposing we have a franchise tax or fee but, if we do, let's dedicate it to street maintenance. We are ali paying taxes someplace. He again asked that if this ordinance be passed, pass it with dedication of funds to street maintenance. Motion by Councilmember Beyer and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to table the introduction of the Franchise Fee ordinance. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beyer, Zimmerman, Beahen and Peterson. Voting No: None. Case g9: Development of City of Ramsey Residential Parcel City Administrator Schroeder reported that, in October, Council authorized a proposal for the potential sale and development of a City-owned, 21.7-acre parcel of land. We received proposals from three persons. Subsequent to that, we received purchase offers. He disseminated a copy of ~ ~ City Council/December 10, 1996 Page 18 of 25